FINALLY!! A primitive asks the obvious question

[USA4ME]

katmondoo

Why did Obama sign the Sequestration bill

Couldn't he have just vetoed it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022458429

Let the excuse making begin!

graham4anything

1. So the 2014 house could get to the other side of the street of course.

Yeah.  Dear Leader is playing 16 trillion level chess.  

graham4anything =  

OKNancy

2. No. A deal was cut with the Republicans so that they would increase the debt ceiling. If he had gone back on the deal they would not vote to increase it in the future.. saying he can't be trusted, blah blah. Defaulting on the debt is ten times more detrimental to the economy than the sequester.

Ah, the most powerful man in the world was under duress.  He HAD to do it!!  He had no choice but to obey.

Now that's just pitiful.

Drale

3. He could have but he did not think the Republicans were stupid and/or crazy enough to let it go into effect. It was meant as a kick in the butt, saying hey if you don't work this out look at the terrible thing that is going to happen. He did not count on the fact that the Republicans have changed their stance from lets hurt the Economy to hurt Obama to LETS DESTROY THE ECONOMY TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA!!

OK, so he signed something he really didn't want because he didn't believe it would happen.  Well, that's brilliant!  Why would anyone who had a even as little as a single brain cell sign something into effect they didn't really want?  How stupid is he?

geek tragedy

5. It was an artificial crisis created to stave off an even worse artificial crisis.

Congress sucks because it has Republicans running it.

So trade one crisis for another.  Is that it?

Com'n, you gotta be more inventive than that.

lunatica


6. No. It was not veto abled.

It was created with the intention of it being such a bad thing to happen that no one, NO ONE, would allow it to happen.
 
So far this Century it's been everything decent human beings would never allow to happen gets to happen. From the Supreme Court selecting President Bush to the Sequester. No holds barred, lunacy be ****ed, the totally unspeakable is gonna happen and has happened.

A combination of the other excuses that hold no merit.

HiPointDem

7. yes, he could have vetoed it. and he could have gone to the people to make his case.

instead, kabuki and psyops

An honest answer.

riqster

8. Had he vetoed it, the U.S. would have been in default

And the economy would have collapsed.

He was under duress........... again.

still_one

9. Because he thought it would provide incentive for negotiations. What he still doesn't realize is 30% of the republicans in congress hate him. Many are racists who hate the idea that an African American is leading this country
 
There are a fair number of their constituents who really believe he is Marxist, which is their way of demonizing him by accusing him of something he is not. The fact remains he is what would have been considered 20 years ago a moderate republican. That is not an insult but only shows how much the country has shifted to the right, so much so that the Democratic Party in general can be considered moderate, and the repukes extreme right
 
Lets face it, most of the policies, including the ACA were the repuke answer to healthcare.
 
When the President wanted to solve the fiscal cliff issue, these POS racists repukes would not even give him the time of day, but when Joe Biden proposed the same thing, no problem.
 
What different about this picture?

Biden is white, Obama is black. How dare the "help" tell us what to do

**** the republicans today, lee Atwater and his scorced earth policy can go to hell
 
The demographics of the country are changing, and the repukes will be left behind

16 trillion level chess....... again.

I'm detecting a pattern here.  Keep a watch and see if they can come up with something different, because so far they haven't stated anything that doesn't scream "If he didn't want it to happen then he was stupid!!"

.

[hillneck]

geek tragedy
5. It was an artificial crisis created to stave off an even worse artificial crisis.
Congress sucks because it has Republicans running it.

Since when are the Republicans in charge of the Senate?

graham4anything
1. So the 2014 house could get to the other side of the street of course.

Please DUmbass, explain this us.

[USA4ME]

jeff47

12. Because it wasn't a stand-alone issue. He had to sign it to get the debt ceiling raised.

Defaulting on our debt would be pretty damn disastrous. The economy would be in chaos as the government stopped spending money on everything instead of just the cuts in the sequester.

Wow, that's the dumbest excuse yet.   jeff47 primitive, you get the "How stupid can a primitivew be?" prize of the day.

Still a "the most powerful man in the world was under duress and had to obey" excuse, but claiming it wasn't a stand alone issue takes the cake.  What legislation does Congress ever pass along for the President to sign that's a stand alone issue?  None.  Still doesn't excuse the president from signing something if he doesn't really want it.

.

[delilahmused]

Since when are the Republicans in charge of the Senate?


Please DUmbass, explain this us.

So the House changes hands. The prez, the dems, the left, the press (but I repeat myself) have made sure all low information voters think "congress" means republicans. When was the last time the media referred to "congress" to include Harry Reid and the senate? Reid is trotted out to criticize and demonize the republicans in congress, but never held to account for never bringing legislation sent from the house to the floor. DUmmies are the ultimate low information voter...like little lemmings...everything their overlords in the WH, Senate, media says they immediately parrot (and believe).

The left can't push through their agenda like they did with health care. Republicans are the ones stopping them. Thus, make sure everyone who thinks "congress" immediately things "republican". I'd actually be surprised if the House doesn't go back to the dems. Republicans are so demonized and have absolutely idea (or desire to learn) how to fight back. The ones standing strong in the house have no power. It's going to take something jarring & earth shattering to pull the country back. 0bama's "Julie" is the norm now, from cradle to grave. They only thing stopping the rest of the country from (being made so poor from paying ridiculously high taxes) joining Julia is the house.

Cindie

[wasp69]

katmondoo

Why did Obama sign the Sequestration bill

Couldn't he have just vetoed it?

Because he's an immature, unthinking, instant gratification, numb nut who didn't bother to say "hey, this might come back and blow up on me".  That's why, you ****ing idiot.

Oh, and there is this little matter of him threatening to veto any legislation that did away with these cuts on the 22nd of November back in 2011, so there's that hanging out there as well, just waiting for you to pick it up and brush it off.

Does anyone else get the idea that this sequester thing isn't going nearly as well (or as badly) as obinga and the DUmmies wanted it to be?

[Rebel]

geek tragedy

5. It was an artificial crisis created to stave off an even worse artificial crisis.

Congress sucks because it has Republicans running it.

You want to compare the health of our economy under Congress with majority Dim from '07-'11 or Republican House/Dim Senate from '11-present to, say, a full Republican congress in Bush's first 6 years, ****nuts?

[JohnnyReb]

The president was under duh dress?....

[98ZJUSMC]

Yeah.  Dear Leader is playing 16 trillion level chess.

[Delmar]

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:25 PM
 katmondoo (1,784 posts)

Why did Obama sign the Sequestration bill


 
Couldn't he have just vetoed it?

He promised to veto any effort to undo the sequester, DUmbass.

"Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No," Mr. Obama said from the White House briefing room Monday evening. "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57329146-503544/obama-pledges-to-veto-effort-to-undo-automatic-spending-cuts/

 

[Dori]

katmondoo

Why did Obama sign the Sequestration bill

Couldn't he have just vetoed it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022458429

The sequester was the brain child of the White House to start with. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

Drale

3. He could have but he did not think the Republicans were stupid and/or crazy enough to let it go into effect. It was meant as a kick in the butt, saying hey if you don't work this out look at the terrible thing that is going to happen...

...Which he immediately followed by declaring all of his own positions as non-negotiable issues of principle, purposely torpedoing any chance of coming to some kind of consensus resolution.  Way to go, Obama!!!

 

[J P Sousa]

A primitive asks the obvious question   

But doesn't accept the obvious answer. 
.

[Ballygrl]

Because it was an election year?

[Duke Nukum]

Didn't Dr0neBama threaten to veto the bill last year if it didn't have sequestration in it?

[Aristotelian]

still_one

9. Because he thought it would provide incentive for negotiations. What he still doesn't realize is 30% of the republicans in congress hate him.

A very disappointing statistic indeed - if it were anything other than a random piece of poo picked out of the DUmmy's mind I'd be seriously worried about the 70% who don't seem to be doing their jobs.

[RobJohnson]

Listen up DUmmies............

In the South, Klan members were still Democratic, as it was a one-party region for whites. Klan chapters were closely allied with Democratic police, sheriffs, and other functionaries of local government. Since disfranchisement of most African Americans and many poor whites around the start of the 20th century, the only political activity for whites took place within the Democratic Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

[USA4ME]

Zen Democrat

19. No. He was required to sign it.

The law, passed by Congress on January 2, says that "on March 1, 2013, the president shall order a sequestration for fiscal year 2013." He waited until the end of the day to sign the order.
 

In August 2011, congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 requiring the sequester order to be signed on January 2, 2013, if congress had not passed a bill with individually-named cuts totaling $1.5 trillion dollars by December 31, 2012. In the “fiscal cliff” deal, the deadline was moved to February 28, 2013. Congress failed to pass individually-named cuts by either deadline.
 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/03/1191324/-Plain-English-primer-on-sequestration#

You hear that?  *Required* to sign it.  Had to.  No choice.

Where do they invent this stuff from?  The most powerful man in the world was required, he had no choice?  You mean if he didn't that he would be arrested and thrown in jail?

Honestly, I think the whackos from DailyKook could possibly be even more stupid than the primitives.  And this Craig Hardegree that wrote it is an attorney in Atlanta, which automatically tells me he doesn't understand the law.  He's actually trying to argue Congress sent him a bill that was required to be signed by a certain date, as if Congress can create a document that says the POTUS has no choice but to sign it.  What a crock.

99Forever

22. The evil Republicans forced him to do it.

He had no other choice. It's all their fault, the President was powerless to anything about it.

No sacarsm tag but this poster isn't exactly part of the 100% Dear Leader worshippers.  At least I'm holding out hope he's kidding.

TroglodyteScholar

26. The idea was that such wide-reaching cuts would be reprehensible to Dems and Pugs alike.

A faulty assumption, to be sure. Today's right-wing is willing to let the military take a little hit as long as it still means the little guy gets ****ed hard.

He did it not think it would ever happen.

So more than likely we've got the only answers the idiots will ever attain.

1) The most powerful man in the world had no choice.
2) He signed it thinking it would never happen.
3) It wasn't something law permitted him to veto (a slight variation of #1).

Wow!  That's really pitiful coming from the most intelligent people on the planet.

Hey primitives, none of these excuses, what you foolishly would call "reasons," are worth the screen they're typed on.  These are some of the most stupid excuses to try and explain why he signed it into law.  It raises the question of why be the most powerful person in the world if you have no choice but to do exactly what you're told to do, and how stupid do you have to be to sign something into law with the full intent of not expecting it to take place ?

Part of what makes Dear Leader look so stupid are dimwits like you defending him and the dumb excuses you make on his behalf.

.

[wasp69]

Where do they invent this stuff from?  The most powerful man in the world was required, he had no choice?  You mean if he didn't that he would be arrested and thrown in jail?

Honestly, I think the whackos from DailyKook could possibly be even more stupid than the primitives.  And this Craig Hardegree that wrote it is an attorney in Atlanta, which automatically tells me he doesn't understand the law.  He's actually trying to argue Congress sent him a bill that was required to be signed by a certain date, as if Congress can create a document that says the POTUS has no choice but to sign it.  What a crock.

So more than likely we've got the only answers the idiots will ever attain.

1) The most powerful man in the world had no choice.
2) He signed it thinking it would never happen.
3) It wasn't something law permitted him to veto (a slight variation of #1).

Wow!  That's really pitiful coming from the most intelligent people on the planet.

Hey primitives, none of these excuses, what you foolishly would call "reasons," are worth the screen they're typed on.  These are some of the most stupid excuses to try and explain why he signed it into law.  It raises the question of why be the most powerful person in the world if you have no choice but to do exactly what you're told to do, and how stupid do you have to be to sign something into law with the full intent of not expecting it to take place ?

When a "lawyer" trots out that steaming pile of BS (one that is so obviously and easily shot down), you know they see this opportunity to seize this "crisis" and turn it to their favor slipping away.  The more strident they become, the more you know they are losing.

I love it.

[jukin]

Because it was an election year?

BINGO!!!!

[Ballygrl]

BINGO!!!!

Obama wanted sequester to take that talking point away from Romney during the debates.